“I personally have always felt that somebody must have had some sense of what was happening at this compound,” Panetta insisted, adding that some Pakistani officials “would have asked the question ‘what the hell’s going on there?’”

US officials have repeatedly made allegations to this effect, but the Pakistani government has maintained that they did not know Osama bin Laden was at the compound, and indeed has expressed annoyance that the US didn’t tell anyone about their suspicions.

According to Vice President Joe Biden, Panetta was the lone hawk on the attack, saying he was the only one of President Obama’s advisers urging an attack on the compound. Biden says he and others were pushing for more time to find out if bin Laden was actually there before sending troops in.

The raid did considerable harm to US-Pakistani relations, and was just one of several high profile incidents in 2011 that left the two nations’ relationship in tatters. Pakistan is said to be in the process of internally negotiating a new set of rules for their dealings with the US in the future.

Click here to read more from 7 News

Biden did note that Pakistan had been “very helpful in other times,” like when the invaded South Waziristan, but added “its not sufficient. They have to get better,” and that the US is “demanding” Pakistan do more.

Ever an enthusiastic support of the wars, Biden also declared that the US is “getting close” to a total victory over “organized terrorist activities” and that Americans are “safer today than they were a decade ago.”

Pakistan’s government is under growing pressure domestically to distance itself from the US, with repeated US drone strikes in its tribal areas doing serious damage to its credibility and killing large numbers of innocent civilians.

Biden also said it was possible that the 4,439 slain US soldiers and over 32,000 (officially) wounded soldiers might be worth it but “only history will answer that.” As a Senator in 2003, Biden enthusiastically supported the US invasion of Iraq.

But now he says “if we could go back and do it all over again maybe we wouldn’t do it,” and seemed far afield from the Senator and later Presidential candidate that was shrugging off the vast majority of those casualties while they were happening.

Which of course is the problem with time, it is entirely linear, and Vice President Biden can’t “go back and do it all over again” and hope he doesn’t make the same disastrous choice. For the people of Iraq, the hopes of a long-time enthusiast that they still have somewhere around the same odds as a coin toss of coming out of the war with something resembling a stable government will probably be of little comfort.

Biden went on to insist that it was vital for the US to “keep the commitment of this administration as it relates to Afghanistan” and thanks the Congressmen for their “courage” in supporting the continuation of the occupation, despite the massive unpopularity and growing death toll of the war.

Biden promised that the administration would strengthen its ties to the new, Republican House, which swept to power in November’s election following the massive unpopularity of so many of the Democratic votes.

To that end there appears to be a growing split between the long-standing House Republicans, who are eager to rubber stamp anything that means a continued war, and the large influx of new Congressmen, elected to address concerns about fiscal irresponsibility, including the spiraling military budget.

The comments were a major boost to Maliki, who has been insisting that he will keep his pledge of seeing the US troops out but has been met with considerable skepticism. Unfortunately, Biden continued to speak, and has he has so often done in the past, appeared to seriously backtrack.

Following his seeming guarantees about the SOFA deadline, Biden insisted that Iraq was “going to need help beyond 2011″ and insisted that US troops would “probably” remain in the country to support Maliki.

Maliki’s promise to see US troops out is in doubt, but he would face a major political backlash across the board, but particularly from cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, if he shrugs off the SOFA deadline. When he pushed the SOFA in 2008 he received narrow approval predicated on a referendum the following year – the referendum has still never been held.

Officials say that Biden warned leaders that America’s patience was “wearing thin” on the long promised invasion, and that the US would not wait forever for them to do so. US officials have repeatedly suggested the notion of a US ground invasion of the region if Pakistan doesn’t follow through.

The Obama Administration has been keen to see the invasion of North Waziristan for over a year, and has repeatedly issued such demands. Pakistan has confirmed agreeing to the invasion, but has allowed the Pakistani military to determine when to begin.

Such an invasion seems to be for America’s sake more than anything strategic, as previous US-mandated invasions have accomplished virtually nothing beyond chasing the civilian population into refugee camps for the duration. Most of the high profile militants, which fled to North Waziristan when the US demanded the invasion of South Waziristan, have long since returned to South Waziristan or elsewhere. If the invasion happens, it will be to convince the administration that President Zardari is following orders.

Iraqi officials have confirmed that Biden’s talks will center around the possibility of keeping American troops in the nation in 2012 and beyond, with meetings planned with President Talabani, Prime Minister Maliki and Kurdish President Barzani.

Just weeks ago Prime Minister Maliki insisted that the US would absolutely have to leave on time, but whether such comments will stand up to a meeting with US officials, a number of whom have expressed determination to remain in Iraq for years to come, remains to be seen.

But for Maliki backing off may not be an option either, as influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has made his current support for the government predicated on keeping the US withdrawal on schedule. Though Sadr seems keen at the moment to set himself up as a political power-broker and not a commander of militias, this could change at any time if he perceived the US, which openly opposed his bloc being in the government, were to remain.

“We are not leaving in 2014,” Biden assured President Hamid Karzai during a news conference in Kabul, insisting that the US was prepared to continue with its military occupation “well beyond 2014.”

Biden, who had previously chastised Karzai for his corruption, praised him today for his “leadership” through nearly a decade of failed NATO military adventures. Karzai, who has recently been condemning the US for killing large numbers of civilians, spent his time praising the US for its “contributions.”

Currently there are some 150,000 NATO troops, predominantly from the United States, and NATO estimates that there are 25,000 Taliban forces in the country, which is the exact same estimate they made a year ago. Despite claims of “progress” in the war, violence is still on the rise across the nation.

Its a promise, at least as close as the Vice President could come without using the actual word “promise,” but it is one which every single report and every single official statement, beyond a couple days of trying to spin the war as showing “progress,” totally contradicts.

The Obama Administration just got done with the NATO summit in Lisbon,which eyed the beginning of a serious transfer to Afghan security forces started in 2015. Even that was dismissed by the Pentagon as overly optimistic, and a number of officials have insisted that even after the “transition” troops will be fighting in Afghanistan for decades, open-endedly.

The “promise,” such as it is, seems to be a function of President Obama’s Thursday speech, claiming massive progress in the war, convincing virtually no one. At the same time it is a promise that no one seriously expects will be kept, leaving many grasping for a word that means the same thing as “overt liar” but isn’t as likely to hurt the Vice President’s feelings.